The holding focused mainly on the fact that the "scienter" element for an inducement theory of infringement relates not to the defendant's belief regarding the patent's validity but to its awareness of infringement. Id. at 9.

The Court also cited the statutory presumption in favor of each patent's validity and noted that "validity is not a defense to infringement, it is a defense to liability." Id. at 10 & 11.

It went on to note that infringers may protect themselves by suing for a declaratory judgment of invalidity, that a good-faith-but-wrong belief in invalidity defense would make patent litigation "more burdensome", and that ignorance or mistake of law generally doesn't excuse breaking the law. Id. at 12-13.